Court Rulings Support Recent Southampton Village ARB Decisions

Two recent Suffolk County Supreme Court decisions have ruled in favor of the Southampton Village Architectural Review Board, which came under fire for approving homes some believe are too large or not in keeping with the village’s historical character.

In a December 12 decision, a County Supreme Court justice dismissed an Article 78 lawsuit filed by Ann and John Pyne. It claimed an approved house at 483 Hill Street is too large for the neighborhood, both aesthetically and in terms of setting a precedent paving the way for more large houses in the area.

The court disagreed, saying that the Pyne family would not be affected by the 5.531-square-foot, two-story home now under construction on Hill Street on 1.2 acres of land. The house was approved by the Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review on May 14 after several months of hearings. At the time, the property owners and Farrell Builders, which is undertaking the project, worked with several other neighbors to make changes to the plan to satisfy their concerns.

The Pynes filed the Article 78 on June 17, requesting an injunction to halt construction. Both the injunction and the lawsuit were formally dismissed on December 12 by Justice Jeffrey Arlen Spinner.

The Suffolk County Supreme Court also denied an appeal to halt construction on the 40 Meadow Lane House. The appeal followed a November decision that an injunction would not be granted because the petitioners, Thompson and Caroline Dean of 20 Meadow Lane and Linda Hackett of 62 Meadow Lane, failed to prove they would be harmed in any way by the construction of a 53-foot-high home on the beach.

The application to the ARB, filed by EAM 40 Meadow Lane LLC, was to build a seven-bedroom, 9.5-bathroom house that will rise 53 feet above sea level and 49 feet above grade—a full 14 feet above the village’s limits—in part because it will be elevated to meet increased Federal Emergency Management Agency flood height requirements. The house, which will be surrounded by shrubbery and trees, will have a zinc roof and glass paneling on all four sides.

Although the appeal for an injunction has been denied, a decision on the Article 78 lawsuit filed by the neighbors against the homeowners is still pending.

“There are several cases now of judges siding with the right of the neighbors,” said attorney John Bennett, who represents Farrell Builders in the Hill Street case and the homeowners of 40 Meadow Lane. “I think that judges are rightly suspect of neighbors who try to stop conforming construction.”